User talk:Nick/Archive15

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates
Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case
You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:0aheadnovel0/Walter H. Dyett High School
Hello NotASpy, I was asking you and User:Revent in #wikipedia-en-help about User:0aheadnovel0/Walter H. Dyett High School but I got disconnected. Because User:0aheadnovel0/Walter H. Dyett High School has not been edited in more than 4 years, should I move it to Draft:Walter H. Dyett High School instead of nominating it for deletion at MfD? Draft:New Zealand Music Commission is an example of one which was moved to Draft instead of being nominated. Can you please advise me of what do in this instance. Thank you, PNGWantok (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A quick search shows that the school in question has an article at Dyett Academic Center, so there is no particular reason to move it to draft space. Since the editor in question only made two edits four years ago I doubt they are coming back, so you might as well nuke it to clean up the stale drafts. Revent talk 11:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Revent. I did a search on Google but I didn't find that page. I have nominated it for deletion. PNGWantok (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just as a note...
Thanks for writing that WT:AIR thing in your own words - which is what should have been done in the first place by one side or the other in the edit war. Because, regardless of how useful a post may be, banned means banned. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I hate to tell you, but you're wrong. Please read through and re-familiarise yourself with Banning policy which allows editors to reinstate edits made by a blocked or banned user at their own discretion provided they take responsibility for that edit. Many thanks. Nick (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Jaguar XE image
Just curious, where did that image come from, and what's the free-use rational? 842U (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

it's a Jaguar press image supplied by Jaguar's Middle East and North Africa press office under a free licence. They helpfully release all their images under a CC-BY licence. They're one of several hundred companies now using CC-BY to get their press images into use on Wikipedia and sister projects. Nick (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! 842U (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Bede House
What is wrong with Bede House image? Ray Oaks (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * - nothing at all, on the contrary, it's a valuable image so I've moved it onto Commons, where it can be used by other projects (there's a few translations of articles on various Aberdeen buildings and bits of architecture). It's still visible at the original title, deletion here is purely a technical issue as the image has been duplicated. Nick (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation - the alert message was confusing. As you might imagine I am not an "expert" in Wikitalk. Apologies if I appeared sniffy in my response to the original message. :-) Ray Oaks (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

AWB access
Nick, I wanted to know if I should request for AWB access on WP:AN based on my performance since the revocation. That time, I had about 125,000 edits, now I have 155,000. I feel that I have really learned a lot from that incident. I was aware that further objectionable editing would place me under editing restrictions like topic ban on mass editing and any automated editing. I avoided making mistakes. My talk page had number of complaints during the time you would take action, but it remains free of any complaints since the day you had revoked the access.

During this period, I have been involved with a number of backlogs, mostly Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. I also had GA, DYK.   Thanks  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any issues with your access being restored, give it 24 hours for anybody to object, and if nobody does, feel free to request access in the usual manner. Nick (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I had posted on WP:AN.{check this) 11 days now, I still don't seem to be receiving any complaints with my editing. I have made around 3k edits during this period. So what you think about the consensus? 3 oppose - 3 support, 1 undecided/neutral. One of the oppose seems to contradict established policy. What can be done now?  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's clearly no consensus to restore access, so there's nothing I can do. I'd suggest waiting for the same period and requesting access again at a later date. Nick (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I had to restore the whole thread today, can you recheck? Thanks  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to close the thread, as I'm involved, but it's still looking firmly like there's no consensus and that those who oppose you being given AWB access have very serious concerns which would need to be assuaged. Nick (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!
Hello. Can you give me some options? I can talk to you now by phone or video if you email me. I can seek other comment elsewhere, but I do not want to do a deletion review because I feel that is not the right process because the judgments were all valid. I wrote a new article. You seem to not accept it. What should I do?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot offer any other options, there are set processes to follow on Wikipedia. The previous AfD addresses the notability concerns and it was agreed amongst those who took part in that discussion that Jashodaben was not notable on their own, an issue you have yet to address despite presenting new sources. You will need to take the discussion to deletion review and demonstrate that Jashodaben is independently notable before creating a new article. It is not possible to simply create a new article and ignore the outcome of a previous AfD, one that's less than six months old and I must insist that you follow due process. Nick (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. I still object to your doing this without giving an explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page. Other than that - thanks for patrolling and keeping order.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The outcome is of this is at Deletion_review/Log/2014_September_30. As we had both agreed and wanted, the past deletion discussions were confirmed as valid. I still assert that I have a substantially new version of this article as compared to the last one which went to deletion discussion, and would like to recreate something. I think that I have a compromise which I could explain to you here if you liked, but first let me ask: Do you want to engage with me further on this, or should I find someone more personally interested (which is no problem)? If you do want to continue talk, to what extent would it be useful to you that I present further argument to ask you to remove page protection? At this point I am looking for an admin to confirm or deny that I have standing to recreate a different article which can go to AfD, and for that admin to remove page protection.
 * Sorry for any stress that came to you as a result of this. Being an admin gets a lot of flak and it is unfair that people in this role are second-guessed continually, and it was not my desire that you experience this because of me.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The situation, as we know, is complicated. I'd think it's probably for the best if you find another administrator and after informing them of the DRV discussion and previous AfDs, ask for them to remove the page protection. I'm happy for any administrator to remove the protection and allow the restoration of your article. The other option which might work is for you to create a Draft article and nominate that for deletion, making participants aware of the DRV and previous AfDs, to see if they think your draft is suitable for inclusion. It's somewhat unorthodox but gets round the technical issues of recent AfDs and the DRV. The last option is to continue to pursue inclusion at Narendra Modi's talk page, gain consensus there and you'll have consensus to effectively cast aside the previous AfDs and DRV. Nick (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for all of your help. It is not my intent to draw you more deeply into this but I did mention your name on the admin board and per protocol I am informing you that I spoke of you. You have been entirely helpful.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock on hold
I have placed an unblock request at User talk:David Hedlund on hold. You blocked the account on 1 July, since when the editor has made a number of unblock requests. He has attempted to indicate that he understands the reason for the block, and will not do the things that led to the block again. Like other admins who declined earlier unblock requests, I am by no means sure that he really does understand well enough, but I am in favour of giving him a chance. At the worst, an unblock would be giving him enough rope to prove that he has not learnt better, in which case he can be blocked again very quickly, and at best it will turn out that he really has learnt, and we gain a constructive editor. What do you think? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and I'm quite happy to give him another chance. Nick (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I've unblocked. Let's see how it goes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

AN3 report of revert war at Battle of Badr
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Notifying you because you are an admin who [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Badr&diff=prev&oldid=629175356 commented on the article talk page] and might have opinions on what to do. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Article: "Joseph Steinberg"
Hello Nick. I was going to create an article for technology author “Joseph Steinberg” {who has also been in the press for writing against sexism} and I saw you are listed as a Wikipedia Administrator who deleted a prior article about him. Your comments from that deletion state that he was bordering on being notable. After then he seems to be appearing in ‘reliable sources’ for different topics often (examples - USA Today - BBC - current Google News) and his writing shows much larger numbers of readers than before. Forbes also mentions him as a top writer one example. Worldcat now shows 749 libraries with his book. It was 544 when the old article was deleted. He seems for-sure to pass the rules for notability for authors. But I am a Wikipedia user who is new to editing. So I wanted to check with you if you still object to the article or if I can create it. I will not ask you to restore the old article as the previous deletion says the old article was very promotional. --Thetechgirl (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've no objections and don't see why you shouldn't have a go at writing a new article. I can't guarantee it won't be nominated for deletion, but it's not something I intend to do. Nick (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Thank you. --Thetechgirl (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Lia Olguța Vasilescu
Hello. Please see this at WP:AN, where I talk about an edit of yours that I find very odd. -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the minor complication, but as it seemed an "incident" I moved the matter here in WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I came here to post a notice that I've tagged Lia Olguța Vasilescu as a copyright violation, though now I see that the matter's already been raised by Hoary. In this case the text is indeed free content, but you have failed to attribute the authors in the manner prescribed by the licence.  You are, of course, welcome to take responsibility for the restored edits of the banned contributor, but you must do a proper WP:HISTMERGE so that they and all other contributors to the article are properly credited.  Simply linking to an anonymous offsite copyvio, as you did here, is not sufficient. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Rabbits and Trix
Have a look at the contribs of SillyRabbit2. Might just be a coincidence... Peridon (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * umm, that account doesn't exist. Nick (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, small r not big R. This is in connection with a recent block you made. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Iaaasi
Nick: I see you commented recently at the AN/I section on the Romanian politician article, so you've been keeping an eye on it, but I'm notifying you that as I've just said there, it seems to be time to call the question on unbanning Iaaasi. I'm not at all familiar with his case, and you clearly not only are but believe he's either rehabilitated himself such that articles he creates are now useful to the encyclopedia, or has almost reached that point, so I'm putting it to you: do you want to make the proposal? Maybe with some suggestion for mentoring, topic limitation, or similar? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * He's fit to be unbanned, if it wasn't for the socking. I've looked at the content he's written with his socks and I can't see any problems with inherent POV issues or nationalistic issues. The only thing that concerns me is how recent his sockpuppetry runs to, and I've said to him, I would want to see a few months free from sockpuppetry before I'd propose unbanning. The problem is how to keep someone who wants to write content from breaching his ban by socking, which is where the idea of him writing on his blog came in, but that seems like far too much trouble. Nick (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be grateful if you could dig up what exactly Jimbo said when he proposed the blog idea; he's said I have misrepresented it. I agree with both you and Wnt, we have a collision of values here: we want to build the encyclopedia, but banned people have been banned because the community feels they represent a danger to the encyclopedia that outweighs the value of their lost contributions. However, I very strongly feel that the solution is not to do an end run around the ban, for reasons I've attempted to explain several times at AN/I; and ArbCom appears to agree with the thrust of my thoughts on that, if I'm understanding their legalese correctly. On the smaller scale, I don't know this editor or where in particular he gets into trouble (other than socking and insistent canvassing). If it were a language I could read, I'd wade in and solve the problem editorially. But unless someone comes forward who can genuinely vet that article (and any others he's socked to write) for nationalist bias, that avenue is closed off. And a lot of you seem to think we would be better off with him rehabilitated. I'd rather you, or one of his other backers, made the case. But I don't think we're doing the encyclopedia any good wrangling over it, partly because the issue will remain - both for this editor and for others, such as Pumpie.


 * I've quoted you in a response on AN/I, but I fear I must now go to bed. I'll look both here and there when I get up to prepare for work. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to find Jimbo's post for a couple of days now and can't find it, so I've asked Jimmy to repeat/clarify and expand based on my attempt with Iaaasi. Nick (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that and especially for the explanation at AN/I, which I've responded to. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Katy_Perry_at_the_Prudential_Center_(cropped).jpg
Hi Nick, Not sure where to post this so my apologies if it's in the wrong place!,

Although you removed the offending image it's still visible here (2nd image on the right) and is also visible on some of the other wiki's linked,

I had hoped after a few hours it would revert back but clearly not,

Anyway thanks,

Regards, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  04:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I can only guess it's a caching issue somewhere between you and Wikipedia. The images were reverted then deleted on Commons so there's no way they could remain visible on WMF sites ordinarily. Nick (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah I had wondered that to be honest but thought it was best I checked first anyway, Anyway all back to normal :), Cheers, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your undeletion of Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland?
Hi - I deleted this per WP:CSD, and you undeleted it with the edit summary "I'll take responsibility for it". Whatever that may mean, it does not change the reason for the deletion, that is, being created by a banned editor in violation of their ban with no substantial contributions by others, including you. Please re-delete the article accordingly.  Sandstein  11:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Please read Banning_policy. Nick (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * How is that policy relevant for the purpose of applying WP:CSD?   Sandstein   11:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content. which is what I'm doing.
 * Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion. Any editor can use the template db-g5, or its alternative name db-banned, to mark such a page. If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do. which you didn't do. You went on a wilful deletion spree destroying content which has survived an AfD.
 * I suggest, if you wish the content deleted, AfD is the most appropriate venue, and always was, given the article previously survived AfD and has been assessed by the community as meeting inclusion standards. Nick (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Nick, as the G5 speedy was obviously valid, if you wished the content to be undeleted, the only proper venue would have been for you to go to DRV. Your undeletion was out of process and constitutes wheel-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)w
 * It doesn't say that anywhere that I can see, so that looks to be nothing more than your opinion or interpretation. Sorry. Nick (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion request
Good day. I was wondering if you would consider undeleting Brickell Flatiron. While I recognize that many WP:Crystal ball pages of things that never came to fruition should be deleted, as well as that there are many low quality stubs on Miami-area related topics, this one has come back to life (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article1963188.html http://www.thenextmiami.com/index.php/65-story-brickell-flatiron-552-units-launches-sales/) and was/is fairly significant as a larger project with a unique design. It was also going to be a true mixed-use building and was going to be built around an elevated transit system between two properties, which is very rare. I believe the article was just a stub but it is possible that there could be some bit of history that is lost in the page, especially since many local sources such as The Miami Herald are highly prone to link-rot with no easily accessible archive. I know low quality stubs are annoying, especially when they are spammy, but this one doesn't have to be. Thank you. B137 (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've undeleted it for you. If you do decide later that you're unable to get it up to the desired standard though, let me know and I'll re-delete it for you. Nick (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There should be no problem. It has decent coverage. B137 (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Final Amendment
Hi Nick, thanks a million for helping me out with my issue. Though I noticed you changed:

Kit_body_Dragons2007h_PL.png to Kit_body_Dragons2007a_PL.png File:Kit body Dragons2007h PL.png instead of Kit_Body_Dragons2007a_PL.png File:Kit body Dragons2007a PL.png to Kit_body_Dragons2007a_PL.png

Kit_body_Dragons2007h_PL.png needed to remain as it was.

Would you be able to amend this for me?

Cheers,

Yoka 17:35, 10 November 2014 (AEST)


 * Done. Nick (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

BNA access
Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Driftchambers
Hello Nick,

It's been since 11th of January and i haven't had any intention for most of those months to regain access, as i forgot altogether about the whole thing, but just recently something happened that made me think i really do need to regain access. It's just that i provided the info last time in response to your reply but received no reply from yourself. Also i have a wikipedia homepage which has the password stored upon it, but the actual password is only part of the information on that page, and i haven't yet found out which part the password is, as i've only started to make attempts today. At some time in the future i'll likely be able to re-find the password, but at the moment it's just an issue of trying every variation, which is time consuming.

I'll just have to continue to attempt to at least regain access to the account via repeated attempts.

thanks 146.90.8.128 (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Steinberg
Hello. You previously deleted a similar article on Joseph Steinberg (Articles for deletion/Joseph Steinberg (2nd nomination)). It appears you've worked out the notability issues with User:Thetechgirl and the article is restarted. I was wondering if you would mind porting the old article content to my user space here: User:Dkriegls/Joseph Steinberg sandbox. I would like to mine it for old citations that aren't promotional. Cheers, --  D kriegls (talk to me! ) 05:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * - done. Nick (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheer's! I'll keep an eye on the article and try to defend against promotional adds.  D kriegls (talk to me! ) 21:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI Darkness Shines sock block
I just wanted to point out, because I think it was missed, that a second editor in that thread has suggested that they are a sockpuppet of Mark Nutley as well. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents NE2 says that they are this person as well at the bottom. This seems if I'm not mistaken to have been posted after this topic was closed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do apologize, it seems they were joking. until checking the diff I didn't see their hidden message.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

File metadata cleanup
Hello Nick,

I'm contacting you because you offered to help with the File metadata cleanup drive on this wiki. Thank you!

There are still many files lacking machine-readable information, and many of them can be fixed by adding special markers to the information and copyright templates. Can you help? Even occasional or small edits are appreciated :)

I'm available via email, IRC or on-wiki to answer questions if you're not sure how to proceed. Let me know if you need help! Guillaume 21:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines
Hi Nick, this is Russavia. Have you seen the evidence that I posted to talk page, which was constantly reverted by, and ultimately revdelled by  as "degrading". Can you believe Arbcom knew some 3.5 years ago about TLAM being Marknutley and simply said they weren't convinced. Seriously dude, wtf is up with this project. 88.196.12.14 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  90.191.4.234 (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nick, just letting you know about this. I am very amused by removing it - no doubt because it's showing him as the twit that he is. Can you believe that Arbcom dropped the ball on this? No? :> 81.7.118.179 (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nick, I see you have popped over to The Chav's talk page and are asking for answers. I should also let you know that I made this an issue at the Dec 2011 elections. Here is the question that I asked of all candidates -- Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Kirill_Lokshin. From what I can remember is the only person who IGNORED it. Perhaps he could answer these questions now. Also,  was basically the only person amongst them who was willing to block TLAM at that stage; but the Committee's stating that they had "control" of the situation obviously put him off from doing that. My questions might make for good questions for The Chav now. 88.216.175.145 (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Caregiving
Your revert reintroduced a copyvio from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/22/geront.gnt156.full.pdf+html so I've once again removed the offending text. Feel free to rewrite it using original wording, but please also be aware that this source is only a primary one anyhow, so you should either avoid the voice of the encyclopedia or find a better source. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl!  16:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * it's not me you need to tell, it's the editor you reverted with the summary (Undo test edits). We're not psychic, you know and can't be expected to guess you've found a copyright violation. As it is, you should request revision deletion of the copyright violation. Nick (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the revdel suggestion, I'll look into it. I wasn't initially certain that it had been a copyvio, but have since confirmed it. Deleting the mangled test edit seemed the safer alternative at the time. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your question to Technical13
T13 has responded to your question with a "Hasteur's a bad man" screed. Feel free to look at his "It's not my fault" explanations in the exact manner they appear to be intended, as a "Fuckyouimright-itis" flare up. Hasteur (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Diego Grez?
What's going on with Diego? We know each other from the Scots Wikipedia and he seemed like a good guy. I'm concerned. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confirming at present that his account isn't compromised, and I've left a message for Diego on his talk page. I'd hope it's something relatively benign like a brother playing with his computer or similar. Nick (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giles Guthrie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Service Cross. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

AN/I
"I would, however, strongly implore the organisers of next year's WikiCup to take onboard the complaint Bloom has raised and ensure similar issues are mitigated against in future, so something productive comes from this complete disaster area." That is easier said than done. The "complaint" that Bloom made in the first instance was completely unreasonable, and he has refused to drop this stick in the many months since (spilling over, as you've seen, into RfA, and now AN/I). There may be some sense in the suggestion that a rule about "delayed updates" be put in place, but, first, it isn't clear how that rule would work, and, second, it isn't clear that there would be much support for it. (The WikiCup, like anywhere else on Wikipedia, is run on a consensus model- the judges do not decree the rules from on high.) There has been no progress in this area purely and simply because of Bloom's awful conduct. If someone else wants to push for such a rule to be put in place, it's possible that some progress would be made, but whether or not that would happen is another issue. J Milburn (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for your request there. You're not the first person to agree with me that urgent reform is needed, and I'm glad more and more people see that the current system leaves much to be desired. The proposal was made as far back as 2012, but unfortunately, not everyone wants to make the necessary changes for a fair and transparent competition. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

G5 is evil
Hello Nick, could you please take a look at Special:Contributions/Г5исевил (G5 is evil). As you can see User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has reverted all of my edits, and if you check the deleted contribs, he has also deleted logos and new logos which I uploaded for use in the relevant. Firstly, given the very public accusations by The Cavalry how I have made his life a living hell, don't you think he should back off on what are good edits; particularly when he isn't active as per Special:Contributions/Chase_me_ladies,_I%27m_the_Cavalry. It could easily be seen as him acting in a vindictive way.

Nick, could you please undelete the files and revert his edits. They were clearly good edits to the encyclopaedia which were being made -- as you can see there is no vandalism or other destructive edits (not by me anyway). Thanking you in advance. 189.232.135.250 (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, Nick, you can see how indiscriminate the reverts are made with ALROSA (airline). I moved this to the new name for airline from Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise. By all rights shouldn't move that back. I mean if he wants to play G5 games, he could at least do more than a half-arsed job at it. 189.232.135.250 (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nick, it's me again.


 * Firstly, you'll see that User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has blocked the other IP I was using for 3 months as a webhostblock even though this clearly shows it is not a webhost nor an open proxy. Can you please remind him not to use the tool indiscriminately like this he is.


 * Secondly, you'll see that he is still reverting good edits. He is essentially destroying content.


 * Thirdly, ALROSA (airline) has still not been moved back to Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise under G5, and the first link deleted.


 * Fourthly, these files were uploaded by me. Any chance we could get them undeleted and put back into the articles please?


 * Fifthly, you'll notice he is ignoring you on his talk page.


 * Sixthly, you'll see that he has marked as a CU confirmed sock. However, Sockpuppet investigations/Russavia has not been touched since 20 November 2014. As a CU who is using the tools, he needs to have a reason for the checking the account. He needs to provide a reasoning for using the tool. Perhaps he could be asked on what basis he CU'ed that account. He should be logging this through the sockpuppet investigation case with his evidence, so that it can be looked at. There were no tell-tale signs in any of these edits, and they are not within his area of interest. So he needs to explain on what he checked that account.

Thank you, 189.166.109.214 (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turbofan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lycoming. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Billy Davies
Any chance of a wee pp on that yin, to give the fans a chance to come to terms with the situation that allie is stayin --nonsense ferret 17:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Giles Guthrie
Hello! Your submission of Giles Guthrie at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You ask and you shall receive
Got permission for File:Argentine Air Force LMAASA IA-63 Pampa II (AT-63).jpg yesterday. Anything else? 119.59.87.6 (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Giles Guthrie
 Harrias  talk 12:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
I also agree that the "sex offender" bit is a WP:BLP issue and shouldn't be there (see the response I made in the talk page to the IP that changed it). Thanks for being bold :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novocaine (film) (2nd nomination)
Remember last week when you closed Articles for deletion/A Season for Miracles for being an inappropriate reason for deletion? Looks like the same user did it again at Articles for deletion/Novocaine (film) (2nd nomination), since apparently, the nominator decided to try his hand at getting it deleted again. I'd close it myself, but it's not good etiquette to close a nom after I participated in it, so I think you should re-close it, and so we can get that AFD banner off the page.  Zappa SJS Mati  00:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

List of personal unions
I see that you have deleted and redirected the article "List of personal unions" on the grounds "‎(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: unattributed copy/paste from Personal unions)". I am not arguing for the retention of the superfluous list; but the claim of "copyright infringement" from another Wikipedia article is so odd that I wonder if it is a mistake. Maproom (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not. The material was copied and pasted from Personal union to List of personal unions without linking to either Personal union or its history resulting in a loss of attribution. The lack of attribution is what, in this situation, creates the copyright infringement. We do actually delete material on this basis, either entire articles or individual revisions, on a frequent basis. Nick (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. I realise now that that does make sense. Maproom (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A problematic editor
An editor you've warned/restricted has some continuing edits that are troubling to me (he's the Articles for deletion/A Season for Miracles Articles for deletion/Novocaine (film) (2nd nomination) editor). He's done some quick reversions without discussion, marked major edits as minor, etc. Even though I perhaps could have reverted his edits again I instead started discussions on the articles' talk pages, posted Talkbacks on his talkpage about the article discussions and left a Notice about the minor edits issue. Wanted someone else to have their eyes on the situation. Shearonink (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

IMPACT
Hello, you helped remove a likely/obvious copyvio in the article IMPACT, and then restored an old version of the page which covered a different topic. However, there is already an article on that topic, IMPACT (computer graphics). These clearly share some content, but I'm not sure what kind of revision lineage each bit carries, and if they're worth merging or not. Related to this, whether a merge should happen or not, IMPACT should probably redirect to impact, as there appears to be a few different acronyms of "IMPACT" with no clear primary topic for the all-caps phrase. Thanks for having looked into this! djr13 (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about the page. I've merged the history and created a redirect as you suggested. Cheers, Nick (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ken Sibanda Page
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Nick in the future please try and have the issue debated in an open manner and assume the best from your fellow editors, we are an open forum that uses a broad manner to edit. We do not punish and accuse editors. You deleted an article that seems to meet the minimum number of notable neutral sources because you were not individually satisfied that Ken Sibanda is "not notable."

No page should be summarily deleted unless it is libelous. Your reasons for deleting the above page seem to be of a personal nature. The accusations against the creator of the 'Ken SIbanda' page are not sustainable.

Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacecorps1222 (talk • contribs)
 * Note --Neil N  talk to me 23:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting guidance on Siyaram - Article page that was deleted
Hi Nick. This is Victor Foli. I was always interested in getting my piece of work published in Wikipedia, therefore I started my first article, talking about a brand called "Siyaram", famous in India for their apparels. It seems that it was reviewed & accepted by FeatherPluma on 31st January 2015 and given an assessment of "start-class". Oddly it seems, the same was deleted by you after couple of hours. Frankly, I just started to settle with the way things work around in Wikipedia, so can you help me understand on whether anything was wrong with the article I created. Help me understand, why the article was deleted.

Following timestamp was registered, when I went on to see the Siyaram's talk page: 20:16, 31 January 2015 Nick (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Siyaram's (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace: G8: Talk page of a deleted page) 20:07, 31 January 2015 Primefac (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Siyaram's to Draft talk:Siyaram's (Reverting mass of dubious acceptances) (revert)

Requesting your help to understand the situation. Thanks.


 * Hi, your article was accepted by an inexperienced editor who didn't understand what they were doing. User returned your article to Draft status (it's still at Draft:Siyaram's) and because that created a redirect, I came along and deleted it (that's just housekeeping and doesn't affect your Draft article). There are problems with your Draft which will need to be addressed before it can be reconsidered for acceptance, but those will be detailed on the Draft. Hope this helps. Nick (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Nick for your prompt response. I would also like to state that the draft status on the Siyaram's page is still showing to be "Under Review". And there are no details on the draft outlining the issue of the same. Will be great, if you could let me know when can I get some idea on what are the necessary changes required for the article.

Thanks.


 * I don't review articles or deal too much with the Draft article process, so I'm unsure how long a wait you will have to get advice on the changes needed. Nick (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Redacting edits by vandal IP 70.208.96.29
Hi Nick. I see that you've redacted of  on Beyond My Ken's talk page. I'd like to thank you for that. However, this IP posted the content to four other user talk pages, and I'd appreciate it if these other edits, which are all identical to the one to BMK's talk page, are also redacted per WP:RD2. Thanks in advance, Epic Genius (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Epic Genius (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a bit of a rant, en ref to the thread over at Favonian's user talk page
(I refer to this thread, just so we're in the clear. Also, as stated, I'm gonna rant here a bit, so feel free to remove this off your talk page if you so desire.)

I myself have not used Wikipedia in a long while, and as such am unfamiliar with the current block and unblock policies. However, if I were to see an unfair block myself on any user, I would take the liberty of reversing it. This is not to say that Reguyla's block was unfair (by all means, extending a block is fine, but completely resetting it is just bad news bears) even if I myself believe it to be such, but what I mean is if it were obviously unfair, unwarrented, unneeded.

I myself work under my own policies. If I see something wrong, I don't hesitate to fix it, no matter who caused it. I, as an admin for a few wikis over on Wikia, have gone by this. It's gotten people on my behind about it, but many admins on several wikis do see why I do things that way: if I believe that action to be the right one to take, whether it be for the rules or even against them, I do it. I'd even go so far as to say I wouldn't consider ArbCom higher authority if they did something out of line. Let me put it this way: I don't consider myself high authority to anyone. I do what is right or at least what I think is right. Even if ordered otherwise, if I see something isn't getting fixed, I'm willing to ignore orders to fix it myself. I've just always been that way. The rules come second, and the correct measures come first, even if I'm unsure...

I do apologize for posting this on your talk page so suddenly. I just wanted to say that to someone. It gets on my nerves a bit when I want to say something yet I feel awkward doing so... -LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 05:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You have been mentioned...
...at Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjoy64. Ta, --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick can we talk?
I submitted a page to wiki on Michael Pawlyn and was really upset you deleted it without getting in touch. The content was compiled in good faith and I was not aware of any copyright infringement. Please can you advise on how I can get the page reinstated or edited so that the problem is sorted.

By the way, I am a woman and I noticed that only 20% of wiki contributors are women. Wouldn't it be good to encourage me to stay?

Thank you for helping out,

Best wishes

Kjhathome (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Kjhathome, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions! I happened to stumble across your message while patroling for vandalism. Unfortunately, articles written clearly from copyrighted sources are candidates for speedy deletion under WP:CSD, which means that they can be removed almost immediately based on this reason. You should use such copyrighted information as sources, not as material for copying. Feel free to refer to WP:PLAGIARISM to find out more about how to quote articles without copying. Optakeover  (Talk)   05:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

Is there a chance you could redirect me to the post so I can rectify the problem - which I am still unsure exists. Michael Pawlyn is a regular speaker at Ecobuild and has their full cooperation. You edit seems abrupt and a little cruel considering it took me time to work out how to put the page together. I feel quite let down by the system.

Please can you help.

Many thanks,

Kjhathome (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

Is there a chance you could redirect me to the post so I can rectify the problem - which I am still unsure exists. Michael Pawlyn is a regular speaker at Ecobuild and has their full cooperation. You edit seems abrupt and a little cruel considering it took me time to work out how to put the page together. I feel quite let down by the system.

Please can you help.

Many thanks,

Kjhathome (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

You have also deleted a holding page I put up on Exploration Architecture. Please get back to me as you are causing problems and not communicating fairly

Many thanks, Kjhathome (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Kjhathome (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - Optakeover has informed you of the problem above. Wikipedia cannot use content copied and pasted from other websites, nor can we use images that have been taken from other sites and uploaded with an incorrect or unproven copyright status/licence. When you write an article on Wikipedia, you must write it yourself, in your own words, such that it isn't copied or plagiarised from another site. Copyright violating content cannot be restored, we routinely remove such material from old articles as well as new ones. We also do not permit "holding pages" to be created on the project - they were frequently abandoned and now we expect any article added to Wikipedia to be able to meet all of our requirements on content, structure, referencing etc, as soon as it is published. We do offer users the ability to create Draft articles - where you can slowly write new content at your own pace, and seek assistance from experienced editors. The Article Creation Wizard will help you create a new Draft article (just don't use content copied from elsewhere). We do this because Google will show results for new articles almost immediately, and improperly created or unfinished holding pages can give strange or unfortunate results in Google, violating our core policy on the biographies of living people. Draft articles, whilst they're being worked on, don't show up in Google.


 * We can allow the use of copyright images, if this helps, but the photographer or nominated copyright owner needs to give permission for images to be used, and to release them under a specific set of conditions, for more information on that, please read through this page.


 * The good news, is (whilst I didn't look into Michael in great depth) I believe he would qualify for an article, and there shouldn't be too many issues covering him to a suitable standard capable of demonstrating that he meets our inclusion criteria.


 * If you need further assistance, do feel free to return and ask further questions. Nick (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

The article written about Michael Pawlyn was completely original and it took me a long time learn how to put together on wiki and complete. The Exploration articles was only for myself and Michael to look at and work out what the content would be. I took the content from the Architecture Foundation with whom we had collaborated with on an exhibition but only as an example rather than final copy. I think you actions verge on being spiteful. I can see the point of removing salacious or pornographic material from wiki but information about relevant individuals is appropriate. I am not even sure if there is a conflict of interest with ecobuild as I supplied them with that image in the first place. The picture of Michael was taken by a photography who supplied permission for us to use it - it is featured on the exploration website so I can see no problem with it being used on wiki.

I would be grateful if you could let me have access to the content that I generated as I have no record of it.

Regards,

Kjhathome (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * if you're going to (a) ignore my lengthy explanation about copyright and (b) make baseless accusations about my actions being spiteful, then I think our conversation is rapidly going to conclude. The articles I deleted both copied text, verbatim, from the URLs shown in the deletion log. In the case of Michael Pawlyn, that article included text from and in the case of Exploration Architecture, that article included text from . The copyright violations were the only reason for deletion, rewrite the content from the beginning and no problem will exist. Nick (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Nick

Would it not have been easier to point that out than make me start all over again? And, as I said the Exploration page was a place holder for me to show Michael what it could look like prior to writing text. We provided the Architecture Foundation with the text in the first place - as with the content for ecobuild. So don't keep banging on about copyright. I get it. What I don't get is your just blasting away hours of work without communicating with me first.

It would have been so easy to rectify. Now I have to start from scratch which is really sickening.

Kjhathome (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Kjhathome, before you start over please read up on editing with a conflict of interest. If you were tasked with writing an article about any subject or are going to have Mr Pawlyn check your work before submitting it to Wikipedia you may not be impartial enough to edit an encyclopedia like this. Wikipedia relies on facts that are presented in a neutral manner and are backed up by reliable secondary sources. If the subject of the article is going to have a say about what can be shown and what should be hidden we cannot use such texts. Wikipedia has very strict rules about writing about living persons but that does not mean that the persons themselves may dictate the content of the article about them. De728631 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how you can claim it would be easy to rectify two articles that were copied from other websites but it will be incredibly difficult to write completely new content from the beginning. That makes little sense - the content was copied from two other websites, both of which are online - there's very little difference between what I deleted from Wikipedia and what I identified as the source of the material. For the absolute avoidance of any doubt, the content I deleted is not ever going to be restored, no matter how much time you waste on my talk page complaining.
 * I have said previously, but will repeat, we delete copyright violating content from new and old articles whenever we find it. We don't let people edit their way around a copyright violation then deal with it later, our policies and the law doesn't work in that way. I'm sure you can appreciate if the situation were different and your work was on Wikipedia without your permission, you would want it removed pretty darn quick.
 * I also don't understand why you would register on Wikipedia and then fail to read our Terms of Use, which have specific instructions for people being tasked with creating content for commercial purposes (that can be paid or unpaid, in the course of their work or as a volunteer for their employer, relation or partner). We have a number of policies which we expect new users to read up on before they begin editing, and if you haven't done so, I'm afraid whilst that's really unfortunate, I cannot be blamed for failures which are entirely on your part.
 * Moving forward, the first thing you need to do is read the Terms of Use (see here) and decide how you will declare any conflict of interest, and then think about whether you should even be writing these articles, or if making a request at Requested Articles is more appropriate. The requested articles page is somewhere you can ask that an uninvolved, unconnected editor with more editing experience writes these articles instead.
 * If you do decide you can and should write these articles, I've already suggested that going through the Article Creation Process is the best option, creating Draft articles for the two topics you wish to write about. The Draft process allows you to gain help from experienced editors, who may help you write and re-write the articles, remedy conflict of interest problems we see in articles written by those with close connections with the subject, and generally help smooth the editing process. The only real restrictions are that content can't be copied in from elsewhere, and that biographies mustn't be libellous or contain unsourced material.
 * I'm willing to help, but if you're not going to accept the help that's on offer, there's nothing we can do further. Nick (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

ID
rather than edit war over your comment, it might help move things along if you just strike it and comment on the proposal instead... same effect but less drama. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a case of simple etiquette, don't remove other people's comments from talk pages. Nick (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Vjmlhds
I'd have commented there but the user removed the thread from their talk page again. I'm sure you'll see it on your own but I figured I'd point out that they've continued edit warring here even after the conversation on his talk page.  G loss  23:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

While I understand your position...
I think your comment at ANI was inflammatory, and it's just as well his response was left at that. Not one of your better moments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * in what respect ? I do think, genuinely, that OccultZone is now in need of a block and support that course of action. Nick (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In the respect that you have explained why you think Kumioko should be brought back to the community (which OccultZone clearly disagrees with), you asserted that OccultZone should be blocked for having brought his grievance to ANI (despite the fact that he appears to no longer be edit-warring), and yet you did nothing in respect of his complaint about misuse of rollback by your fellow administrator. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't do anything about misuse of rollback - that's an integral part of the admin toolset, and as such, it's an ArbCom issue. He would need to raise the complaint with ArbCom through a Request for Arbitration, as ANI can't desysop or otherwise sanction an administrator. What I can deal with is the issue of Kumioko's block and OccultZone's disruption, both things which can be dealt with at ANI. Nick (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you maintain that remarkably ridiculous position, it appears I will need to exhaust dispute resolution in respect of your remarkably impaired judgment as an administrator. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm really quite unsure what you're trying to say, or why you're talking about dispute resolution, a content related process. What action would you like me to take against my fellow administrator for misuse of rollback ? What action would you like me to take against OccultZone for his disruption ? If you could clearly and coherently explain your thinking, that would be a start. Nick (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Dispute resolution is not just content-related; it is conduct-related - and ANI forms part of that process. Administrators are expected to assist in resolving disputes rather than aggravate them unnecessarily. What I would have expected you to do earlier was to acknowledge that the use of the rollback was inappropriate, and request/suggest/hint/discuss the possibility that an apology from your fellow administrator would resolve the complaint on this occasion. Just because you cannot remove tools does not mean that you should not let your peer know if they made a mistake or simply screwed up, and can resolve the issue before it is escalated. As far as OZ is concerned, I would have expected you to remind him that he should have raised his complaint with your fellow administrator directly in the first instance before making the comment at ANI, that his edit-warring on HJM's user talk page is inappropriate, and he risks being blocked if he continues. Proposing a block when he ceased edit-warring in response to his complaint about rollback misuse was not helpful, and it would have been far more helpful to ask if others could try to discuss the issue with OZ to see your point of view. You may have a more general reason for proposing a block, but I do not see what would have been prevented at that moment in time.
 * That would have left his proposal at ANI - and although I don't support it, I expect he would be more inclined to let it go after each of the grievances have been addressed rather than appearing to suggest to him that all of his concerns are unjustified (when evidently, at least one of them was not). Finally, your expectation that only ArbCom can resolve a complaint of rollback misuse is unjustified; ArbCom are only required if the community are divided on the issue, the misuse persists, and the tool needs to be forcefully removed. Other than to acknowledge that you will bear the above in mind in future, there is nothing more I would like you to do at the moment. Everything else would probably have been done by now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you had said that at the start, it would have been a hell of a lot more useful. I have many, many talents, but mind-reading is, sadly, not one of them.
 * You also need to read carefully what I posted. I suggested OccultZone should be blocked for disruption, which is something several other administrators have also warned OccultZone for. I never warned him to stop edit warring or said he should be blocked for edit warring, that's something you've just assumed for no good reason.
 * As to why he should be blocked - there is a pattern of disruption which has continued for many days now, edit warring very recently, his new obsession with sockpuppetry and calling anyone he disagrees with a sockpuppet, very poor behaviour at SPI, an orchestrated campaign to have the block against Reguyla's main account extended by shopping around different administrators, and now with threads at ANI including incorrect notification of editors. It's a pattern of editing which strongly indicates obsessive behaviour bordering bullying of an already blocked editor, and not a sensible, uninvolved thread to ask the community to deal with Kumioko/Reguyla's recent block evasion.
 * The rollback is a tiny, microscopic issue in relation to the grossly disruptive and exceptionally problematic behaviour that OccultZone has been showing recently, and which we really need to deal with. It was never going to be an issue that OccultZone was prepared to drop after each of his complaints has been aired. He, quite simply, for some unclear reason, wants Kumioko/Reguyla banned for life, and is prepared to wage a campaign to achieve that goal. Nick (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have objections over your comment too. Why do your words lack any evidence? You are an admin and you should better know not to make allegations without evidence. Can you tell if he never reported sock puppetry any before this year?
 * If you could also tell that Occult has reported Kumioko before then you may claim any 'obsession' or 'involvement', though the chances were already low when you included your own bias in your comment. Accept that your proposal was malicious and made in bad faith. Noteswork (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are diffs provided in the ANI thread, there's a block log for OccultZone you could look at and the Rape in India edit war issue is something that (a) you can look at yourself, since it's a logged action in the block log and (b) a bit more complex to understand than tossing a couple of diffs in to a discussion. The evidence is there, you just need to look at what's right in front of you. If the discussion was still open, I'd offer to provide more diffs, indeed, if OccultZone doesn't disengage as he's being told by a sizeable number of administrators, I'll be blocking him and providing sufficient evidence to justify my actions.
 * Blocks are something I infrequently hand out and suggest at ANI even less often so for me to suggest a block for OccultZone (as I think four other administrators suggested may be necessary) should be indication of how serious I view the disruption OccultZone has caused in the last few days and weeks. I consider the issue closed for the time being, and don't intend to waste useful editing time on this pointless discussion. Nick (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But those diffs are not speaking about any of your claims that you have made above, or even one question that I had asked. You have made it clear that your proposal was malicious and you are clueless about what you have claimed. Who would even count those blocks? They have not even stayed as long as they were meant to be and removed as malice. You are involved, just keep your one-sided bias limited to yourself. Noteswork (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're going to claim I'm involved and allege a one sided bias, that will need, wait for it, oh yes, evidence. Nick (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * To respond to your last reply to me; although I really don't like the use of words like "obsessive" here, I can very much appreciate the sentiment in the circumstances and what you've said. I might be wrong to think he is moving on (as he should be), and so if the disruption persists, then I agree action will need to be taken and/or the matter to be raised at ANI in relation to his conduct specifically. In the event my optimism is worthwhile (somehow...despite the history which might suggest it isn't), then at least it was handled effectively and the issues are resolved without blocks. He has been given a taste of what it's like when everyone is hard on him (just as he was hard on others); he might be able to appreciate why he should not hold anymore grudges if given a taste of a second chance too. I suppose it's up to him to use the opportunity properly in either instance though as he has a lot to make up for, but time will tell how well it ends for him. Obviously, the best outcome is if both he and Kumioko can edit constructively here without issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Nick, that block that you have pointed was a frivolous block, who gets blocked for 72 hours without even 1 warning and for making (more like restoration of prev. version) in that involved great removal of copyvio and was made against a sock who is indeffed? Now I have found why those "admins" are even cautioning. I know Nick, that your interactions were actually kind and positive towards me before, I can see why they have been changed and it is not clearly your fault. I hope I have told something that you didn't knew.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know we've had some really good interactions before, and I really do not want to see you edit yourself into a community ban, which is what I'm worried you're doing at the moment. I know, contrary to common belief, that nobody genuinely wants to see you or anybody else get to that stage and you to get into real trouble. Nick (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reminder: The block was endorsed by other admins too; including a bureaucrat (Worm That Turned). Most complains were because Bgwhite lifted the first block and not that he did the second. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Mega Holdings Balkan concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Mega Holdings Balkan, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case
The arbitration case Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Remember User:David Hedlund?
Well, he's back (per WP:DUCK) as IP 94.245.53.33, making the exact same type of edits that got him indefinitely blocked, on the exact same type of articles. I've filed an SPI but since that can take a while I thought I'd post here too, to speed things up, because he's very active right now. Thomas.W talk 16:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wheel Warring Statement
I was unsure whether, on behalf of the ArbCom, to hat your statements about the principle about wheel warring being a valid principle but irrelevant to the case. As a compromise, I have boxed them, because enough has been said. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Stitching .svg s together.
I wanted to know how can I stitch some existing .svg files on commons together to make a new .svg file? Is it easy to do? Or I require some software or something? aGastya   &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 10:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd expect Inkscape will be what you would need, but SVGs are something I rarely get involved with. There may be tools around online to merge files for you too, but I've not come across any. Nick (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I want to make a new .svg, for the purpose of an icon. So if I complete it, can you please help me setting its size and other details (if required)? aGastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I can, yeah. Nick (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, is it not a tool that can be used in commons (like that crop tool?) And then how am I supposed to give the credit to the users that I have used their .svg? aGastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 11:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There are templates on Commons that allow you to credit more than one author and image source for a composite image. Nick (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

-- User:Operawind
The user has filed an appeal to their block. In light of the CU result, what are your thoughts on unblocking? Do you want to reserve and process the UTRS ticket yourself? (I've unreserved it in case you want it). Thanks. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you the NotASpy guy on the help chat?
Why did you ban me from the chat??????? Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be because you kept on repeating my name for no reason, proclaiming yourself to be an expert and having an inappropriate, libellous screen name. If you wish to help, you're expected to maintain minimum standards of behaviour, including the use of a sensible username, providing clear and concise help to those who need it, to not 'mess around' or needlessly notify other users etc. Nick (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

RfA
I would like a link to your RfA. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * that's nice. We were discussing you, changing the subject would suggest you realise you have erred in your behaviour. Have you reverted your edit to the AfC Participant List yet ? Nick (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like a link to your RfA. That is a perfectly reasonable request. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but not when the subject of the discussion is you and your behaviour. Will you be explaining your behaviour at any point, and reverting your edit to the AfC Participant List ? Nick (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is another way. You can do as any other user can do, search for it. . As an admin yourself, you should know where old RfAs are. <span style="background: turquoise;font-family: 'Segoe Script', 'Comic Sans MS';">(t)  Josve05a  (c) 19:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for Kudpung to revert his removal of Quinto Simmaco and whilst I think about it, offer up a sensible justification for such a silly edit and a silly rule (which I believe was his idea in the first place). Quinto could make the 100 or so edits he needs through an automated tool in the next 24 hours, but it's not going to improve his understanding or competency. It's a most unusual requirement, as there's no competency assessment or discussion. Socks can (and have) added themselves to the list, so it's not really working all that well at present. Nick (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Reguyla&oldid=667403628&diff=prev]
reason?--GZWDer (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You removed the explanation Reguyla/Kumioko gave on their talk page, which is linked to in various discussions around the project, and added on some tags and categories which aren't helpful, all of which made understanding the various block logs of Kumioko/Reguyla much more difficult. The administrators here are more than capable of adding the correct categories and tags to blocked users pages without you trying to help and complicating matters.
 * In future, if the blocking administrator has chosen not to add a sockpuppet tag, to categorise the sockpuppet in a category, to redirect talk pages etc, or to carry out any other type of edit, then you shouldn't just do so. The vast majority of sockpuppets we block aren't tagged other than a note in the block log, and as is the case with the Kumioko/Reguyla accounts, there are fairly often reasons why conventional tagging of pages isn't appropriate and why we haven't done so. Nick (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Request to restore deleted content
You recently moved content from a user page to mainspace for the article Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016. In so doing, you obviously deleted the redirect as well as the hidden text that existed in the pre-mainspace version. That is fine, but I'd like to request that the deleted content be restored to the article's edit history, as some of the now-deleted hidden text contained content which I believe may be usefully incorporated into the mainspace version of the article. Thanks for your consideration!--JayJasper (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done that for you now. Nick (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--JayJasper (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Spamgoesbang.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spamgoesbang.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 00:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I never thought of…
…that. What a good idea. I may try the one-minute ruse some time — after this post by Sandstein would have been a good time for it. (Or indeed right after Lightbreather's request, how about that? Not against the rules at all.) I might get desysopped for gaming the system, but with the system the way it is, that's fine. Who wants to be a sysop in this mad place? Bishonen &#124; talk 07:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
 * It's not my idea, I read it somewhere else in relation to Eric's block, though I'm damned if I can find where right now. Nick (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "mockery of the whole system" -  precious  again (2 years today)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

NotASpy
Still in the process of verifying and modifying that addition? I don't have a reference for the part you asked about, so let's leave it out.--Elvey(t•c) 00:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got a reference for part of it, and hope to find a reference for the second part. It'll need a short re-write to suit the new reference and terminology. Nick (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * -) https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011130194A2?cl=en goes over other methods.  this edit by User:Edgar181 lasted 3 hours.  I give up.  More than I can handle. --Elvey(t•c) 20:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Awkward?
I'm sorry, but what do you mean? How is preventing bullying and baiting on my talk page "awkward"? Prevention is better than cure surely? What better method is available? I don't believe there is one because all three of those people refuse to listen to reason. For my own peace of mind I need them to stay off my page. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a personal attack and disruptive to accuse any user of bullying you without presenting any evidence. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, it's entirely reasonable for users to leave relevant messages on your talk page. I'm seeing plenty of evidence of you not wanting to hear what these users have to tell you, but no evidence of genuine bullying or harassment. If there is any evidence at all, I expect you to link to it here immediately and I will deal with it, whilst further unsupported allegations of bullying or harassment will be treated as disruption and acted upon accordingly. Nick (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * GaryColemanFan has already been warning for incivility here and it is also noted that he has a history of it. I was disappointed that he wasn't blocked, especially as he brought up a dispute from years ago against another admin - Swarm reviewed this very well. OldSkool manipulated a source as I reported here. I noted the final admin notice to my disappointment - more that it took so long than anything else. OldSkool then got involved in the most obvious case of stubborn conduct here which is also where TrueCRaysball behaved poorly. All three are guilty of bullying me, and as an addition we also had an IP follow suit tagging me to bait me. I removed the tag without changing the content, and was accused of vandalism which is nonsense because it was a tag of me I was removing, not of someone else. All three are not interested in collaboration. They are only interested in their views being taken as kosher and whoa-be-tide anyone who breaks that down. If you need any more information please let me know - and I would point out that if you feel my reactions have been an example of WP:BOOMERANG (I say that without actually reading the rule I should admit) then okay, but it should not exonerate them for their wrong doing to begin with. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm looking for actual diffs showing three users bullying you. You've linked a couple of editing disputes, which generally form when both users - you and the other user - refuse to compromise their stance. Nick (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I linked those in the first place to show how each started, particularly the first two. Basically showing my position on the issues. I felt that was important for you to understand where I'm coming from. As far as actually bullying goes and those diffs I'll get back to you because that will take awhile. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just by the way - did you know that your talk page archive box on the top of the page is all over my "dashboard" (I think that's the right word)? Just letting you know. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll do this in parts, starting with the most recent bullying on the WP:PW page;
 * OldSkool01
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=next&oldid=670741153 This is sarcastic and treating me like a child, therefore also baiting. He also pinged me when I was clearly done.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=next&oldid=670773345 Virtually the same attitude here without the ping.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&:::::diff=next&oldid=670932151 Still won't let it go
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=next&oldid=670953806 Edit to the above making it worse and another bait as well
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=next&oldid=670965338 More baiting simply because I answered his query over the "chip on his shoulder" and plays dumb. I think these diffs and indeed the links I gave as a whole shows that I was telling the truth about his manipulation of a source certainly
 * TrueCRaysball
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=next&oldid=670321074 First sentence only.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=next&oldid=670321897 Ordering me in effect to follow consensus
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=next&oldid=670416366 Baiting a response when my comment clearly showed I was walking away
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=next&oldid=670864162 Another bait, this time trying to cause trouble that did not exist as I recall
 * 81.141.246.36
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=next&oldid=671098081 Pinging me and baiting me as well
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=next&oldid=671112591 Reverting my edit for no good reason to maintain the pinging part of the baiting. I did not change the written content.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curse_of_Fenric&diff=prev&oldid=671100994 I think this rubbish speaks for itself
 * MPJ-DK
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=next&oldid=670739350 Capitalisation not needed (and that's wrong anyway but that's beside the point) Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * GaryColemanFan
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curse_of_Fenric&diff=prev&oldid=668614811 If you're right, he can't do this any more than I can
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riot_City_Wrestling&diff=prev&oldid=670429654 The edit summary is the issue here
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=670371181 This wasn't directed at me but I thought I should add it anyway
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=670156225 An example of "this is the way that it is so shut up" in effect, when he was incredibly wrong
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=670058728 This is a really good example of bullying, and on the next edit he tried to partly hide it as well
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=670000216 Making up new rules? That's more bullying because I was doing no such thing - I was supported by WP:BLP and I wasn't alone in this view.
 * This will have to do. I know there's more, particularly from OldSkool, but it's getting late where I am. If you need more, ping me. Curse of Fenric (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at those diffs and all I can see a group of users who have been incredibly patient with you, there's nothing actionable in any of those diffs and I commend their restraint in the face of your uncooperative behaviour. I did laugh when you complained that a user dared to tell you to follow consensus. TL;DR - their behaviour is fine, yours isn't. Change your behaviour. Nick (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You clearly don't know bullying when you see it. For my own protection, I'm done with Wikipedia. You're pathetic. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice
A discussion you may be interested is now happening on ANI. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"><font color="#041e42">True <font color="#041e42">CRaysball | <font color="#041e42">#RaysUp 00:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Tales of Para Handy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phil Cunningham. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
I noticed that you made a comment on the page that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. L Faraone  02:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Harassment
Your comment on the recent Eric Corbett AE request puzzled me, and seemed uncharacteristically harsh. You accused the filing editor of harassing Eric in a "targeted campaign." From context it appears that you're referring to past behaviour. Is there a record of this? --TS 03:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made my comments about this at the WP:AN discussion that's currently running. Nick (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Notification
Hi Nick -

I made a post regarding your recent threat towards at WP:AN. I dislike teplated warnings, but this is a current diff -- and here is a permanent diff Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Trout
Your admin tools are for maintaining the community. They are not to be used as tools of intimidation against people you disagree with. This is shockingly unbecoming behaviour for an admin and frankly this trout is letting you off a bit light. <b style="color:Black">Chillum</b> 04:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Regardless of the appropriateness (or otherwise) of the block by Keilana, your action Nick, in commenting like this was wholly unacceptable and you should reflect on that carefully. WP:AE is a formal process with rules, one of which is that questionable conduct from admins at AE is sanctionable--<font color="#808080">Cailil  <font color="#808080">talk 11:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree and have apologised at WP:AN for my actions. I am concerned about the Kevin/Eric interaction but I'll leave that for others to deal with as necessary. Nick (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Chillum, now that Rodhullandemu and Wifione are no longer with us I find it hard to think of anyone less well placed than you to accuse other people of "using their admin tools against people they disagree with", given how frequently I see variations of "do as I say or I'll block you" from you. – iridescent  11:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

An ANI discussion that is not about you, but you are directly involved in and that you may be very interested in.
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See It Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

This user made a legal threat against you personally on an "off wikipedia" web site but he later apologized and says he's sorry. Actually it wasn't really a legal threat as most of us feel it wasn't. I just wanted to bring this to your attention. I think you should give Fenic another shot, he learned his lesson and is truly sorry-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  13:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ani
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMarchasis (talk • contribs) 18:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Fenic
As an an onlooker you were wrong to ban Curse of Fenic. He got a little heated, he needed a time out not a huge ban. And his threat was made off of Wikipedia. Give him another chance. Don't lose a great contributor to the wrestling articles and other ones. Vaccines are a tough issue. GhostLight1 (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't ban him and he and still isn't banned (a proposal I've refused to support twice now). The block was indefinite, not infinite and permanent, which means it lasts only as long as it is needed.
 * The indefinite block almost certainly would have been lifted if he had apologised for his poor behaviour and given the reviewing administrator some reassurance that he has understood the concerns that resulted in a couple of reports at ANI and a number of people expressing concerns about his behaviour directly to him. I would have happily consented to the block being lifted in such circumstances. The recent behaviour is obviously of concern and even though it was made off Wikipedia, he linked to it on his talk page and it's a clear indication of his frame of mind - threaten people with legal action to get what he wants, which is grossly inappropriate and unacceptable in a collaborative environment. Fenic will now need to work harder to be unblocked, and any unblock request will now need to be addressed to either UTRS or BASC, but as long as satisfactory reassurances are received about his future conduct, I still see no reason why he cannot be unblocked and make productive, co-operative, trouble free edits. Nick (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to ignore this blocked user, who is part of this sock parade. Cheers! --<font color="#666666">‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State  ‖ 14:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please unprotect Andra Day
More extensive recent coverage, especially a Rolling Stone item, make this a plausible article. I want to move Andra Day (singer) to its appropriate title. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If it survives AfD, I'll remove the creation protection. Nick (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Technical Illusions logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Technical Illusions logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and  MusikAnimal  talk  18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)